 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another year, another election. In the past several elections, I've usually posted my own " (un)Official Voter Information Guide." This year I failed - not because there weren't props I didn't care about, but partly because the entire political system has me more depressed than ever. If you care how I did vote - I voted no on every proposition with two exceptions. I left prop 4 blank, because while I support parental notification for abortion, I just didn't feel comfortable enough with the bill this year (since I hadn't read the text). And I voted yes on prop 5, which was a last minute change of my mind. This marks the first time I've ever voted for something that increased spending (shock!) - though it did at the same time reduce costs. I almost voted no, but at the last minute I noticed that former LP candidate for Senate Judge Jim Gray was a supporter; I've met him, and I liked him. Also - while on libertarian grounds the bill is extremely iffy, I ultimately decided that the benefit in terms of human freedom outweighed the negatives of the particular bill. I don't think it will pass, anyway- but I feel okay with my decision to vote for it. I cared a lot about proposition 8, of course, but that almost goes without saying. Anyway, to my ennui. As you can tell from some of my more recent posts, I've been particularly irritated at all the Obama worship. Yes, I hate McCain just as much, and I've had shouting arguments with my father over that - but at least my dad and most other McCain supporters don't regard him as some savior. He's just another politician to them, and they recognize that they're voting for a "lesser evil". This is a contrast with Obama supporters, many of whom positively seem to think they're voting for Jesus Christ Himself, come to save us from all the evils of the Bush administration. As both an anarchist and a religious person, I find any kind of worship of a politician to be profoundly disturbing. Honestly, every time I see that picture of Obama with the word "Hope" or "Change" under it, I want to scream. The truth is that, when it comes down to it, there's a dime's worth of difference between the two candidates. McCain is a mealy-mouthed liberal of a Republican, and Obama is a junior senator who most people really don't know (he abstains so often, how could anyone really know what he believes?). He's not even a paragon of Leftism that conservatives make him out to be, either; his health care plan isn't truly "universal", he voted for FISA and to reauthorize the Patriot Act, he's postured about invading Iran and Pakistan, he voted for the bailout to Wall Street...I could go on. Essentially, both candidates are moderate Republicrats, both of whom are willing and eager to lie, cheat, and hide their records in order to obtain the highest offices in the land. As an anarchist I could go even farther, but I'll leave it at that. The real truth is that you might as well have flipped a coin today when voting for President. The only substantive difference between the two is the speed with which they might draw down troops in Iraq, and the degree to which their policy proposals will be approved by Congress. Obama, as a Democrat, will have an easier time - and that is unfortunate, because I prefer an adversarial system with one party in the executive and the other in the legislative. Even better if the Senate and Congress can't agree. So, purely strategically - and only as long as the Democrats have control of the Congress - a Republican president might be preferable. But it's so weak that I wouldn't even vote if Obama and McCain were the only choices. Today, I wrote in Ron Paul. Tags: politics, rant, voter information guide
Current Mood:  discontent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WTF. And I thought the last video was creepily reminiscent of Hitler Youth / Young Pioneers / Youth League. (via Wally Conger) This is insanity, people. He's not a hero. He's not a savior. He's not even honest. He's a fucking POLITICIAN. An especially silver-tongued politician, sure, but a politician nonetheless - and as such he keeps company with the very scum of the Earth. This kind of political idolatry turns my stomach, especially when it's infecting children. Give them a real role model. If that role model has to be black, choose an honorable figure like Benjamin Banneker, Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, or Martin Luther King, Jr. ( flawed as he was). But even for them, this kind of sickening display is inappropriate. None of them are bringing the Word to you from Heaven. The greatest thing you could learn from any of them is to be a strong individual and think for yourself. Edit: The original video was removed, so I've replaced it with a backup. Tags: cult of personality, culture, politics, videos
Current Mood:  nauseated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another year, another (u)VIG, this time for a primary election. I read the ballot so you don't have to! I realize I am horribly late with this one - hell, I didn't start this till 2am on Super Tuesday morning. But maybe some of you will see it and care before you go to the polls, or at least it might provide some interesting post-election wrap-up for you. On we go!
So the first question on the ballot, of course, would be - who are you voting for as your party's candidate for President? Well, let's look at these choices...
Oh. God help us.
Well, it isn't all bad. I see Ron Paul on the Republican ticket, that's who I'll be voting for, of course. And Mike Gravel on the Democrat ticket, he's pretty cool. But the rest of them... Well, let's just say I'm not very excited about the prospects for who will actually be the next "leader of the 'free' world". I hate to say it, but of the front-runners, Obama seems the least evil; but (as we all know) when you vote for the lesser evil, you still get evil. He's not nearly as hip and exciting as many of my peers seem to think he is; just another re-packaged mainstream candidate, champing at the bit to deliver you more of the same.
So with a heavy heart, I turn to my favorite part - the propositions. Let's see what we have here...
| Proposition |
Vote |
Why? (summary) |
| 91 |
NO |
Don't bother to vote yes on this one, we passed it in 2006 when it was called "1A" - but for some convoluted procedural reasons it got added to the ballot again this year. If you're interested, I favored a weak yes vote on 1A. |
| 92 |
NO |
HAHAHA. New spending on schools. I guess you can guess how I'm voting in this lovely, but it doesn't matter what I say, because California is going to gladly pass it anyway. We love spending more money on the broken California school system, just hoping against hope that throwing money at the problem will make it go away SOME day. To get into specifics about this prop, while it doesn't pass any new bonds (that's a nice change), it does create a lovely, ginormous new bureaucracy so that community colleges can be administrated from the state level. BAD. Taking control out of local hands is ridiculous, no matter how much autonomy they claim they'll be granted. Local Boarrds of Trustees are the right way to manage local public schools. The other thing that this prop does is reduce fees from $20/unit to $15/unit. Now, I know, I know, you college students are thinking...great! 25% discount for me. (I know, I'm assuming selfish voting, which is not necessarily the case) But hear me out. Lower fees means more money taken from the general fund, especially under the new spending plan that the proposition establishes. The proponents of the proposition say it "does not raise taxes", but come on - how is this new spending going to be paid for in the long haul? We can't keep borrowing ourselves into prosperity forever. Community colleges should be less expensive than normal college, but they should still be essentially user-fee based unless you're on public assistence (which roughly 25% of community college attendees are anyway). |
| 93 |
NO |
This is a silly scheme for certain legislators who would've been term-limited out to hold onto their seats. It says it "reduces" term limits, but because of the way the system works, it actually increases them for most people who actually serve. If you vote yes on this, you're a sucker. |
| 94 |
MAYBE |
Now THESE are actually a little tricky for me on libertarian grounds. On the one hand, I'm all for increased freedom. That's the standard libertarian in me. These tribes want to put in more slot machines? Awesome! Why should I give a crap? The more the merrier. On the other hand, it increases taxes on the casinos, and I never vote for new tax increases. Decisions, decisions. Another issue is that of monopoly/oligopoly. Not only does this only apply to Indian tribes, it's only a handful of them. This is essentially a boon for a special interest group. Is that something we want to be supporting? In the end, I'm not sure how I want to vote on these. I'd like expanded gambling in California - hell, what I actually want is free gaming all across the state, not just on the land of a few Indian tribes. And the new taxes aren't that bad a deal for the casinos, given the vast quantities of increased revenues they'd be capable of. I also have a sore spot at the Indian tribes for campaigning for Cruz Bustamante during the recall campaign. Though of course I'd never vote based on that alone, it does give me pause about the "special interest group" issue. I hate State-legislated oligopolies in all their other forms, so why should Indian gaming be different? In the end, I think I'm going to vote no on these. But it's not a strong no. I'd say I'm open to arguments, but...I'll be voting in about six hours. |
| 95 |
MAYBE |
| 96 |
MAYBE |
| 97 |
MAYBE |
Tags: california, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood:  tired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In overcoming my own conservative biases, and subsequently in arguing about certain political changes with conservatives, I have found myself resorting frequently to history. It is part of what has convinced me, so I figure it may convince them. But up until now I don't think I really had a coherent explanation of why it should convince them - and so sometimes I apparently come off as a little crazy. For example, in a recent argument with my father about anarchism, the topic of public roads came up - and I brought up the origin of the interstate highway system (which was built originally for the movement of troops). He didn't understand the relevance, and since I didn't explain myself very well, I can understand that. But perhaps if I organize my thoughts I can do better in the future. A common trait that people give to "conservatives" is resistance to change. I've always felt this is a wholly inadequate description, however; conservatives propose changes all the time, after all. As a conservative I wanted to see all sorts of things change - the abolition of the welfare state, stronger border security, etc. A better description is that conservatives resist change to institutions they perceive of as traditional. There are many reasons for this, but the primary one is that many conservatives are essentially social evolutionists - they believe that if some institution arises and persists for long enough, it is probably because it has some evolutionary value, and so it should not be altered or abolished lightly. This instinct is not without merit; clearly, many social institutions have contributed to our survival and success as a species, and we would be worse off without them. However, there is a problem with this instinct if it ignores history - because not all traditional institutions have arisen because they make us more evolutionarily viable. Many have arisen merely because of an imbalance of power, and many have only persisted because people resisted change too early. The reason that the origin of the interstate highway system was important to my conception of the problem is that the lingering conservative part of me sees it as a false tradition. The benefits we use it for today are not the reason it was built or successful in the first place; pointing to it as some innovation of government for the benefit of the people is wrong because it wasn't built for the benefit of the people (directly). I like pointing to the history of marriage licensure for the same reason. Conservatives resist changes to licenses because they think it is a true tradition - but it is not. The only reason marriage licensure arose in the United States was as a means of preventing miscegenation, something that most conservatives clearly are not interested in today. So it is a tradition that "snuck in", so to speak; it piggy-backed off of corruption and a power imbalance (racism), and then remained - not because it provides some true evolutionary benefit, but merely because once it was implemented for long enough that inertia set in, and it became increasingly difficult to reverse. Another important institution which a knowledge of history sheds light on is the patent system. Patents arose as monopoly privileges granted by the king, and then by parliament - not to encourage innovation or sharing of information, but essentially for the same reason that lordships were granted. So the current theoretical foundation for why patents are valuable is completely ahistorical - patents did not arise because they have some real value for society, they arose because the king wanted to give benefits to court lackeys. And so it goes. This doesn't directly speak on the value of patents from a theoretical foundation, of course, but it certainly knocks one of the pillars of justification out. Hopefully this has made some sense, I'm still formulating my thoughts on this topic and I need to organize them more. This post was just to get them down in some fashion so that I can analyze them better. Let me know what you think. Tags: politics
Current Mood:  thoughtful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girls Who Said 'Vagina' During Monologues SuspendedDamn! If I was one of those girls' parents, I would be proud as hell. Go tell 'em what they can do with their ruttin' "orders." I've never seen "The Vagina Monologues." I have no idea if I'd like it or not. Nevertheless, I admire the bravery of these girls in standing up against brainless censorship. I love the double-speak in the article, too - "When a student is told by faculty members not to present specified material because of the composition of the audience and they agree to do so..." How much agreement do you really think was going on? How much choice do you imagine they supposed they had? Respect for authority figures (in action, if not thought) is reasonable to a certain extent to ensure social harmony. Even, occasionally, against unreasonable requirements. So I wouldn't encourage many public school students to engage in confrontational behavior of this sort as a matter of course; at least in the current climate, it's better to stick it out until it's over. But occasional challenges to authority by individuals let them know we're not just sheep. As long as there is respect for the rebel, this nation of individualists will not fall wholly into collectivism. And that does give me some small hope. Potentially unrelated observation: It is ironic to me that conservatives seem to be the biggest champions of social collectivism in the US these days. That's a topic to think on. Tags: culture, feminism, politics, rant, vagina
Current Mood:  impressed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, I know some people have been asking for this for a while, and I'm already later than I said I'd be...but here we go: Uncle Garthnak's 2006 California Voter Information Guide!
This year I'm doing something different, though. I noticed the existence of a (very Web2.0-ey) website called theballot.org which was created expressly for the purpose of creating voter information guides. And so, I have posted my guide on their site this year! To view it, click here. As a quick overview, I will be voting yes on propositions 1A, 85, and 90 and no on all the rest. If you vote with me on only one proposition this year, please make it 90. Eminent domain abuse has to stop. Oh, and aside from the usual commentary on my positions (which I know some of you disagree with), I also welcome input on the whole theballot.org experience. Do you prefer it or not to my previous format? It's a little easier to edit since it doesn't require me to write all the HTML myself, and it provides a (very) few community features - though I doubt I'll use them. It also should prove much more printer-friendly than my old guides. But, comments and criticism are always welcome. Some previous (u)VIGs and related posts: * For what it's worth, I now disagree with some of the economic reasoning in this post, especially since the current budget deficit has ballooned out of all proportion. I no longer even pretend to defend most of Bush's economic policies, and simply gawk in amazement. Tags: california, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood:  busy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For this Independence Day, I'd like to take a page from Roderick Long and point you all to Voltairine de Cleyre's insightful thoughts on the revolution. Think about the prophetic words of Thomas Jefferson, which she quotes: "The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." Does the spirit of '76 live on in the United States on this, its 230th birthday? Or have Americans lost their stomache for liberty entirely? The 4th is not a celebration of fireworks, or of flags, or of wars, or of men. It is fundamentally a celebration of ideals. On this day, our founders pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" on the gamble that they might see freedom from England - and establish a nation on the principles of the Enlightenment. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were " self-evident truths," not merely nice goals, to be tossed aside when we are too lazy, afraid, or power-mad to keep them. A microcosm of the perverse nature of our current Congress is the closeness of the flag burning amendment to passing the Congress last week. By one vote! A vote to destroy the very ideals for which the flag stands, in honor of the flag! How hypocritical, or how misguided, for men whose bread and butter are platitudes built on the fathers of the Revolution? Those men cared not for flags, but for liberty. A flag is a symbol, and for Americans it is the symbol of that liberty - but it is the liberty also to destroy one's own property, no matter what its symbolism to others. Yet the people do not know this. They do not think about it, even; they merely get upset at the burning of their symbol, and cry out for the American judicial system to satisfy their anger. Not because of principle, not because of the ideals of the flag, but merely because they are angry. It is this that the Constitution tried to prevent, which it has failed to do. Realize today that the federal government is merely another group of men, just like yourselves. That it does not have the power to heal all wrongs, and that granting it more power will inevitably corrupt it further. Those radicals in 1781 and 1789 had the right idea in attempting to chain Leviathan. But it is up to us, not the Supreme Court or anyone else, to ensure that those chains remain strong. In that duty, Americans have been derelict. It is not too late, but it is a hard road back. And I fear there are few men or women left in this country. Jefferson said, also: "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion...What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure." Tags: culture, events, history, holidays, politics, rant
Current Mood: contemplative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Update: Missed Orange County's Measure A.
Alright, everybody - a bit late this year, and I'm sure it doesn't matter for those of you who vote absentee, but by popular request: My annual voter information guide for this year's primary election! Now, there's only two state props this year, and since they're a bond measure and a tax (respectively) they're both easy votes for me: No and no. But let's have a little more analysis (further detail in the "Notes" cut below): | Proposition | Vote | Why? (summary) | | 81 | NO | Further debt for our children, in an already bankrupt state with $50 billion in bond debt? No thanks. Another $1.2 billion cost for this state is an unnecessary extravagance - particularly when applied to libraries, an institution that is rapidly being obsoleted by technology. | | 82 | NO | Rob Reiner's precious preschool initiative, which further taxes an already over-taxed minority in order to pay for - what? An increase in preschool attendance of less than 5%? Turning a largely private institution into a government-run school (and we all see how well THOSE are working)? No way. Preschools are fine the way they are. California does not need yet another tool of State indoctrination. | | A | YES | (Orange County only) A restriction on eminent domain? Hell yes. I shouldn't even have to expound on this. | ( Notes )
( A rationale for my fellow anarchists )Tags: california, politics, voter information guide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I created the following poll on feminism out of curiosity. I would like as many people as possible to answer, so if you are reading this, please do so. Also, feel free to clarify your response in the comments, if you like. Poll #692530 Feminism
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 71 Do you consider yourself a feminist? If you are a woman - do you feel the modern feminist movement (whatever that means to you) represents your best interests? Which of the following groups do you identify with, if any? Relative to the past, how far do you think the feminist movement should/must go today to achieve equality? (positive = farther, negative = it has gone too far, 0 = it is fine now) If you have any other thoughts on feminism, please note them below. (cross-posted to ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) garthnak and ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) libertarianism) Tags: feminism, politics, polls
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as I posted last year, I shall once again remind everyone what the true celebration of Thanksgiving should be: the triumph of private property and the free market over collectivism and tyranny. The first Thanksgiving was in 1621 and was the result of a meager harvest. At that time, the colony was run communally - the crops would go into a common store, and would be distributed to families much as the Marxist maxim: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Because of this, there was corruption - "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable." Bounty did not come until 1623, when, as William Bradford, governor of the Plymouth colony, writes on: So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
(emphasis mine) So remember and give thanks, as you eat your Thanksgiving feast, the origin of that bounty. It is the calculation of the price system and the incentive of private property that have brought plenty to America. Without capitalism, the cornucopia that surrounds many American families on this day would most certainly be diminished considerably. Individuals, not governments or collectives, are truly responsible for the continuous prosperity we enjoy. For more, I encourage you to read Richard Maybury's article, "The Great Thanksgiving Hoax" from the Mises Institute. Once again, my continual quest to turn every holiday you love into a political rant ;-) Tags: events, history, politics
Current Mood: thoughtful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright. You all know where I stand, and the election is tomorrow. You know what to do - if you are well-informed, have read your voter information guide( s), and feel confident of your choices, please go vote. If you are ill-informed or otherwise poorly equipped to vote, please stay home rather than sully the ballot box with your ignorance. Thank you. Remember: You have no right to vote. You should do your best to earn the privilege. | Proposition | Vote |
|---|
| 73 | Your Conscience* | | 74 | Yes | | 75 | Yes | | 76 | Yes | | 77 | Yes | | 78 | No | | 79 | No | | 80 | No | | B | No | | C | No | | D | No | | E | No | | F | No | | G | No |
If you vote with me on any one proposition, please make it 75. I know public union employees that it affects who are desperate for it - they work in an industry where they are the minority and have no control over how their dues are spent. Along with 76, it is to my mind one of the most important initiatives on the ballot. About B through E: These are all Orange County propositions that are being clamored for by over-funded special interests. Please vote no, we don't need to subsidise public welfare queens any more than we are. F and G may not be on your ballot, they may only apply to Newport-Mesa USD and to La Habra (respectively). If you're in those districts, I recommend voting no - but that's just me. * I understand both sides of the issue on 73. Personally, I am in favor of it on parental rights grounds - but either way it is not an especially important proposition to me, personally. Vote the way that you feel you would prefer the law as a parent or future parent. Tags: events, politics, voter information guide
Current Mood: contemplative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you learn anything from classical liberalism, it should be that it is worth-while in a society to separate political ethics from personal ethics. And today, as far as I know, the only consistent modern practitioners of this sort of modal morality are libertarians. Let me demonstrate by example. As a Christian, I believe that men bear a spiritual obligation to come to the aid of those in need. This is my personal ethics - and while I certainly do not practice it perfectly, I believe it is correct and worthy. However: the fact that I personally believe in this general obligation of mankind does not necessarily have any bearing on my belief in what obligations society should hold men to; ie, it does not bear on my view of political ethics or obligations. So while I whole-heartedly believe in charity and giving to others, and while I believe in a cohesive and mutually supportive social order, I do not believe that charity should be imposed upon individuals by society without an explicit agreement on the part of the particular individuals. The reason it is important for me to make this distinction is because a common charge against libertarians is that we are greedy - that all we care for is money. If you spend any significant time with libertarians outside of a political discussion, however, you should know this is not true; I have known charitable libertarians as well as greedy ones, just like in any other group. We simply believe that charity should not be imposed - that it must be entered into voluntarily. It is similarly so with other issues which most Americans have already grown accustomed to. Blasphemous speech, for example, is morally abhorrent to most Christians - and indeed, the freedom to express it was often denied most explicitly by the law in past history. However, we have come to the realization as a society that to impose codes of speech on others, even about speech that we find offensive or subversive, is tyrannical. Others have different standards of speech than we do, and our own valuations if their speech - while not unimportant - are not sufficient to curtail that speech through the force of the State. Leftists particularly seem to levy the charge that libertarians and conservatives are simply "greedy" and "uncaring" when we oppose redistributive taxation. But they would likely balk at calling the ACLU, paragon of free expression that it is, a promotor of licentiousness, pornography, and the exploitation of women and youths. Yet this is precisely how many in society see the acts that the ACLU protects. So a question for Leftists: does the ACLU protect freedom of expression because they are amoral perverts, or is it because they believe freedom of expression is an ideal worth protecting? If it is the latter, then I respectfully request that you never again generalize conservatives or libertarians as greedy or uncaring merely because they disagree with your favorite social programs. They simply hold to a different set of ideals than you do, which do not include the imposition of economic morality on their fellow human beings. The inverse applies just as well, of course, to conservatives. Do you support the NRA (or similar organizations) because you're crazy gun nuts who believe criminals should have access to firearms and because you want children to shoot each other? Or is it because the right to self-defense and personal responsibility are more fundamentally important than any benefits governments can possibly provide in those areas? While someone like a Quaker may believe it is morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense, that clearly personal conviction should have no bearing on your own right to defend yourself. The lesson is this: Before supporting any particular government program, be certain that you are not simply imposing your own ethics on others (ie, I believe it is right to give to the poor), but rather that you are applying truly universalizable political ethics (ie, does my belief in charity rightfully extend to forcing my fellow citizens to give to the poor?). Tags: philosophy, politics
Current Mood: busy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous 
cynical
amused
33 (46.5%)